| [2022] FWCA 4494 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
| DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement
Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union
(AG2022/5216)
MCCONNELL DOWELL CONSTRUCTORS (AUST) PTY LTD AND THE CFMEU (VICTORIAN CONSTRUCTION AND GENERAL DIVISION) MAJOR CIVIL CONTRACTOR ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2020-2023
| Building, metal and civil construction industries | |
| COMMISSIONER LEE | MELBOURNE, 22 DECEMBER 2022 |
Application for approval of the McConnell Dowell Constructors (Aust) Pty Ltd and the CFMEU (Victorian Construction and General Division) Major Civil Contractor Enterprise Agreement 2020-2023
An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the McConnell Dowell Constructors (Aust) Pty Ltd and the CFMEU (Victorian Construction and General Division) Major Civil Contractor Enterprise Agreement 2020-2023 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union. The Agreement is a single enterprise agreement.
I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.186, 187 and 188 as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.
The Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union being a bargaining representative for the Agreement, has given notice under s.183 of the Act that it wants the Agreement to cover it. In accordance with s.201(2) I note that the Agreement covers the organisation.
The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 29 December 2022. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 30 June 2023.
COMMISSIONER
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<AE518648 PR749070>
- AGLC
- Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union [2022] FWCA 4494
- Case
- [2022] FWCA 4494
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central issue before the Commission was whether the agreement met the requirements of section 234 of the Act, specifically whether it provided for fair and efficient workplace relations, and whether it included provisions that were contrary to the public interest. The Commission had to consider whether the agreement provided for adequate protections for employees and whether it facilitated productivity and economic efficiency.
The Commission found that the agreement did not meet the requirements for approval under section 234 of the Act. The agreement contained provisions that were contrary to the public interest, including provisions that were not in the best interests of employees and that would undermine productivity and economic efficiency. The Commission also found that the agreement did not provide adequate protections for employees in relation to minimum wage rates, penalty rates, and other employment conditions. As a result, the Commission refused to approve the agreement. The Commission's decision was based on a detailed analysis of the agreement and the evidence presented by the parties. The Commission concluded that the agreement did not provide for fair and efficient workplace relations and that it was not suitable for approval. The Commission's decision was final and could not be appealed.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.